PVE Server and PVE zones - Preliminary announcement.

[Remus]

31 minutes ago, Farrago said:

I've only played on PVP2 and when I first started PVE so I don't know how it is on PVP1.

But I wonder...

Are there so many "gankers" or are some  folks just so starved for PVP from the low pop, they pounce when they see a live body no matter how skinny the prey.

Get this thing released!

 

26 minutes ago, Hethwill said:

@Farrago

Most is propaganda but being a probability the possibility of falling prey is always there.´

Gank squads do more to make players to port and TP somewhere else than actually bump into organized defense BUT when it happens everyone has fun.

Smaller groups of rovers, of 2 or 3, using snakes and pickles are less prone to light alarms and will be more dangerous to trade if not to single frigates.

 

Hehe, I like both your posts, for you both speak the truth.

Yes, Farrago, there are some such players. Not necessarily because they are starved of PvP, but because they think it is their right and duty to take any opportunity going. Harass the enemy I think it may be called. I dare say you've read Master and Commander, the first book in Patrick o'Brian's excellent Aubrey-Maturin series. With one very notable exception, all Aubrey's encounters in that book were very one-sided, mostly warships against traders and definitely fair in war, provided the enemy really was from an enemy nation.

But there is an art, if one might call it that, to being a trader in such a world. I think you'll see from my posts here that I very much support PvE players, but I would also encourage you to come over to my side, living (and hauling) in PvP water, running the gauntlet of would-be attackers and working out ways to escape them. The devs don't yet let me hoist a French flag to deceive my enemy, but give me the chance and I will. I'll run and I'll hide. I'll position myself on open water for the most advantageous position in battle, if I am able. I'll tag my would-be attacker if I think it'll give me advantage - even if he is actually a wouldn't-be attacker; sorry, I cannot read your mind, I just watch how you manoeuvre your ship. And I can usually be relied upon to know the best direction to escape. A recent encounter when I happened to have an NPC companion showed me the advantages of taking escorts and I will now add this to my repertoire and see how it pans out. Oh, I am sure there are players who will curse me for running and maybe leaving them to deal with my fleet, but all's fair, isn't it?

[AngryPanCake]

2 hours ago, Justme said:

1- Why are you assuming PVP is all gankers?

Its rare that I see anyone get ganked, but it seems you might be one of the" I want the game to play itself types"

2- Your not really playing a game is if all you do is point your ship in a direction and check on it after 40 mins of doing something else.

3- If we are to have a PVE only server, than we need aggressive AI to make it more than a walk away game.

 

1- Everyone knows that every MMO has its "gankers" or "baby seal clubbers", this comes with the territory. I doubt most common sense players believe that every PvP'er is a ganker or even most of them are, but sometimes even a couple of experiences only can take the fun out of the game.

2- Different people play differently, but it is clear to me that you are having a problem with that, as it is not the first post where you demeaned others for not playing the way you believe this game should be played! Furthermore, being AFK in a game like this is nobody's business. The crossings are long, in real time minutes/hours. If I choose to point my ship towards a particular direction and walk away, it in no way interferes with your game play and if you happen to find my ship in the open, unattended and capture her, then there is no one else to blame but myself!

Now, there is a big difference with joining a port battle and then go AFK, in this case it is totally unacceptable (unless there is a legitimate reason: loss of connection, RL emergency...etc). People who are counting on your guns expect you to do your part!

3- We are hoping to have a dedicated PvE server at the game release and hope all the testing in this early version of the game will prove beneficial to making the PvE version a great game in itself.

Quote

i think the reason so many PVE only guys are looked down on is they give the impression that they want a PVE only game. I seen a few say this should be a trading sim. And that's why they bought it. Then they get confused/angry when the majority gets upset with them.

In my short experience here and in game chat (PvE server), I have not come across any of what you are stating above, but it's "just me"!

The ones that were upset (and I have already quite "eloquently", I think explained it in a previous post), were not because this game was not a PvE game, but rather at the loss of the PvE server. None of the PvE people I chatted with mentioned at any time that this should be a "trading sim" or it's "why they bought it". And none of the people that have posted about the loss of the PvE server seemed confused, angry yes, but not confused.

[LeBoiteux]

Ways to re-implement AI aggressivness

AI aggressiveness (bots tagging PvE-ers) was disabled in Dec 2015, especially for PvP-ers' convenience and are meant to be re-implement after re-design :

I guess there are several ways to do it without hurting anybody, especially PvP-ers who rightfully don't want to be attacked by bots :

1) You could give all warship bots rules to attack players only in the PvE zones in the same exact opposite way as players will be unable to tag other players in the PvE zones. That way there would be warship bots all over the map, some aggressive, in the PvE zones ; others non aggressive, in the PvP zones.

2) You could make all warship bots aggressive and pen up all of them in the PvE zones. The only bots staying in the PvP zones would be some AI traders. Add some AI traders in the PvE zones too.

3) You can mix those two first options with a perk or only create it alone. That perk would enable or disable  AI aggressive on the whole map of the server. You could be attacked by bots or protected from them on the whole map or on the zone they are on.

4) Only some PvE zones (and why not also some PvP zones) could be filled with aggressive warship bots and other zones with non-aggressive warship bots. That is zoning AI aggressiveness.

There are certainly other ways to satisfy everybody that I can't figure out right now. The only thing I can say is I do miss AI aggressiveness in NA. It seems to me that it is a basis of PvE.

 

Edited March 28, 2017 by LeBoiteux

[Hethwill]

@LeBoiteux

NPC changes

Bots will change and will start changing from January. Privateers will be added to the OW attacking players and traders in enemy waters. Elite NPC captains will also sail around and join battles from time to time (like before release)

 

[LeBoiteux]

2 minutes ago, Hethwill said:

@LeBoiteux

NPC changes

Bots will change and will start changing from January. Privateers will be added to the OW attacking players and traders in enemy waters. Elite NPC captains will also sail around and join battles from time to time (like before release)

 

Thx. I know that AI aggressiveness will be implemented. 

But I guess it does not prevent us from discussing about how AI aggressiveness will be implemented, does it ? 

[AngryPanCake]

4 minutes ago, Hethwill said:

NPC changes

1- Bots will change and will start changing from January. 2- Privateers will be added to the OW attacking players and traders in enemy waters. Elite NPC captains will also sail around and join battles from time to time (like before release)

1- Which January are you talking about, next January 2018?

2- These new additions sound great, they will spice up game play for many, or at least PvE players!

[Farrago]

3 hours ago, Remus said:

 

Hehe, I like both your posts, for you both speak the truth.

Yes, Farrago, there are some such players. Not necessarily because they are starved of PvP, but because they think it is their right and duty to take any opportunity going. Harass the enemy I think it may be called. I dare say you've read Master and Commander, the first book in Patrick o'Brian's excellent Aubrey-Maturin series. With one very notable exception, all Aubrey's encounters in that book were very one-sided, mostly warships against traders and definitely fair in war, provided the enemy really was from an enemy 

Thanks for your thoughtful reply. I think it depends on what folks mean when they use the term ganking. I'm totally against the mechanic where folks are logged out waiting for word that prey has been sighted or tagged and then they magically appear. The Devs should try to prevent or minimize this as much as possible. (No combat within 5 minutes of logging in?) However, hiding in a cove or sitting in port seems totally reasonable to me. I also think battle timers should not exist. It's over when it's over. Why would an attacker or defender not use EVERY legitimate strength to achieve victory and that certainly includes superior numbers or skill.

[Hethwill]

24 minutes ago, AngryPanCake said:

1- Which January are you talking about, next January 2018?

2- These new additions sound great, they will spice up game play for many, or at least PvE players!

Don't try to be wise on the number 1. January got delayed to April ? Production takes time and sometimes calendar shifts. Same deal with all activities, from farming to game development, passing through accounting, IT deployments, etc.

2. Looks great even to PvP players.

 

25 minutes ago, LeBoiteux said:

Thx. I know that AI aggressiveness will be implemented. 

But I guess it does not prevent us from discussing about how AI aggressiveness will be implemented, does it ? 

Oh, one thing is, can't be like before where we got nailed at every corner.

So, a couple dangerous ones in nations waters. Quality should be similar to the ones we could find long ago on the Special Events. They were very nice and challenging and not the usual AI run of the mill.

Also a roving squadron of Navy to engage similar sized ships, 74 guns.

On top of that I would program support AI, meaning they would join open battles within the timer or if signaling would be active.

[Remus]

3 minutes ago, Farrago said:

Thanks for your thoughtful reply. I think it depends on what folks mean when they use the term ganking. I'm totally against the mechanic where folks are logged out waiting for word that prey has been sighted or tagged and then they magically appear. The Devs should try to prevent or minimize this as much as possible. (No combat within 5 minutes of logging in?) However, hiding in a cove or sitting in port seems totally reasonable to me. I also think battle timers should not exist. It's over when it's over. Why would an attacker or defender not use EVERY legitimate strength to achieve victory and that certainly includes superior numbers or skill.

Agree entirely about logging (except in the very specific instrance of PBs where I think screening is a poor game mechanic and logging is a suitable counter - but let's not get involved about that here; it has it's own thread).

But what do you mean about battle timers? The 90 minutes thing?? I'm in two minds about that; it's quite handy if I've something else I want to do irl. But the 2 minute exit timer I make full use of. Sure, I could live with it being removed but it could lead to some very long-drawn out chases indeed, and I'd be sorry to lose it.

[AngryPanCake]

4 minutes ago, Hethwill said:

Don't try to be wise on the number 1. Production takes time and sometimes calendar shifts. Same deal with all activities, from farming to game development, passing through accounting, IT deployments, etc.

2. Looks great even to PvP players.

a simple: yes January 2018 would have been plenty sufficient. Thank you.

[LeBoiteux]

10 minutes ago, AngryPanCake said:

a simple: yes January 2018 would have been plenty sufficient. Thank you.

Devs meant January 2017. Hethwill meant that development takes time and there are inherent delays. That why AI aggressiveness haven't already implemented.

[AngryPanCake]

1 minute ago, LeBoiteux said:

Devs meant January 2017. Hethwill meant that development takes time and there are inherent delays. That why AI aggressiveness haven't already implemented.

Oh, I guess it was lost in translation or something! It sounded more like it was going to happen in the future, but in fact has started this past January.

That's even better news.

Thanks for the clarification.

[LeBoiteux]

32 minutes ago, Hethwill said:

Oh, one thing is, can't be like before where we got nailed at every corner.

One thing is, should be like before where we got nailed at every corner, for those who want it (PvE-ers mainly), that's the purpose of my previous post (see below), as aggressive bots in PvE are the counterpart of aggressive players in PvP and it's pretty silly for PvE-ers to see enemy bots passing by without attacking. 

 

Edited March 27, 2017 by LeBoiteux

[LeBoiteux]

4 minutes ago, AngryPanCake said:

Oh, I guess it was lost in translation or something! It sounded more like it was going to happen in the future, but in fact has started this past January.

That's even better news.

Thanks for the clarification.

Admin posted that on 19 January 2017. 

[Ruthless4u]

3 minutes ago, LeBoiteux said:

One thing is, should be like before where we got nailed at every corner, for those who want it (PvE-ers mainly), that's the purpose of my previous post, as aggressive bots in PvE are the counterpart of aggressive players in PvP and it's pretty silly for PvE-ers to see enemy bots passing by without attacking. 

That never made sense to me, passing over a dozen enemy ships and they don't give me a 2nd look. 

[LeBoiteux]

3 minutes ago, Ruthless4u said:

That never made sense to me, passing over a dozen enemy ships and they don't give me a 2nd look. 

AI was agressive before Dec. 2015 but needed to be redesigned.

Edited March 27, 2017 by LeBoiteux

[Bubba Smith]

5 hours ago, Pad Seayew said:

I'm actually thinking of switching to the PvE area after the Wipening.  I just don't have the time for PvP.

I love the game, it's just the most phenomenal time suck I've ever experienced. 

We are restarting our clan hopefully under the same name of Flying Powder Monkeys on PvE great group of about 50-60 players, drop in and say hi. 

 

[Casmund]

On the subject of gankers......here is the breakdown  when we talk PvP  I think we are taking open ocean  in terminology and excluding the  organized  port battles and such wich you will find most PvE (preferred) players don't mind and participate in.   But we all know darn well that there are punks that go out onto the open ocean with malicious intent to wreck peoples day,,,and I believe get off psychologically on it(I suppose its better they do it here than in RL).  These are not sportsmanlike people who would be say a group of buddies gone out to hunt troublemakers but the deviants of our game.

So that's me  with my interpretation of what I think a lot of us consider to be the definition for that term.  

 

 

[Farrago]

1 hour ago, Remus said:

But what do you mean about battle timers? The 90 minutes thing?? I'm in two minds about that; it's quite handy if I've something else I want to do irl. But the 2 minute exit timer I make full use of. Sure, I could live with it being removed but it could lead to some very long-drawn out chases indeed, and I'd be sorry to lose it.

I wasn't clear. I was talking about the timer for how long OW battle instances stay open. It has been 2 minutes for a while. They are at least temporarily making it 5 which has some folks worried about the "logging in to gank" exploit.

I agree with you on the timer to escape. It's necessary.

[Ruthless4u]

58 minutes ago, Casmund said:

On the subject of gankers......here is the breakdown  when we talk PvP  I think we are taking open ocean  in terminology and excluding the  organized  port battles and such wich you will find most PvE (preferred) players don't mind and participate in.   But we all know darn well that there are punks that go out onto the open ocean with malicious intent to wreck peoples day,,,and I believe get off psychologically on it(I suppose its better they do it here than in RL).  These are not sportsmanlike people who would be say a group of buddies gone out to hunt troublemakers but the deviants of our game.

So that's me  with my interpretation of what I think a lot of us consider to be the definition for that term.  

 

 

I hunt solo the majority of the time, if I see an ally that needs help against long odds I try and assist. Occasionally I pair up with somone if they don't mind my hearing issues.

 

I love large battles, but hate uneven fights( ganks) simply due to how boring they are.

[Sir Texas Sir]

12 hours ago, Captain Bonny said:

I personally want a PvE server because after a day's work I sometimes want to play without looking over my shoulder all the time. Also some battles can be very lengthy and I not always have the time to cater all the gankers.

You can do this in the new server if you stay int he PvE zones.  Though I'm going to bet that folks are going to have a fit when they get tagged on the edge of these zones just slipping right out of it into the none safe zones or AFK sailing and forgeting to check there ships.  It just means you never have a total safe zone.  If they bring the aggresive NPC's (privatters that attack in OW) than I hope they have it in this area too.  Sorry folks that just afk sail by point a ship and coming back a few hours later really need to have some fear even if they are PvErs.   Hell I do it but I keep my screen open and watch a movie or play some other game on another window, but I'm still watching my ship.

 

And I plan to be in the PvE zone with my flag on so you guys can get some balls and maybe be a bit frisky and attack me.  Might just find out PvP isn't as bad as y'all think.   I solo played thorugh my first 4 ranks and while I got ganked a few times it was very rare caue I knew not to hang out or trade in hot zones.  I also learned real fast how to sail my ships and use the wind against folks so that helps.

[Pad Seayew]

Not sure what balls have to do with it.  It's a game, play the way you like.

[PIerrick de Badas]

Is it not an advantage for the nation wich are represent in pve as their player will be able to move on pve side if necessary? How to pve safly for pvp sweidsh player? Does it mean they are forced to stay on pvp when spain brit and french can go on pve?

[LeBoiteux]

1 hour ago, Borch said:

Yes, this is the main problem with PvE area. Either make it availible for all the nations or reduce whole game only to Spain, Britain and France.

The main issue with giving all nations some ports in the PvE zones is actually the size of the PvE zone. As there are very few islands in the Gulf, main PvE activity will be along the coast. And that coast is IMO too small to be divided into 8 nations. There are only about 50 ports there, that would make 50/8 = 6-7 ports per nations.

One solution might be to add (imaginary) islands with ports in the middle of the Gulf of Mexico. However, 8 nations in such a small area seem too much.

Adding some free towns in the PvE zone where anybody could build and craft seem sufficient.

[Hethwill]

There's enough map for all playstyles.

Having PVP all the time doesn't exist. There are always relative safe zones in the map if captains are willing to explore and setup outposts.

Hence PvE is a part of PvP and the same way PvP should be a part of PvE, why ?

this I say of personal experience. have raided folk, and chat with them for a bit, that did stay away in quiet regions simply to not get annoyed all the time by pvp'ers, but thanked the change of pace by being attacked by a privateer
thing is they don't like it ALL the time but they can appreciate the challenge now and then.

There's enough map for PvP and PvE.